Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Are area public schools overachieving when it comes to educating students who are statistically tougher to bring up to par? By one measure of state standardized tests, the answer is generally yes.
For more than two decades, the state has “disaggregated” test data to show results for all students in a grade and school, and results for subgroups of students who statistically score lower on standardized tests: Economically disadvantaged, special education, English learners, special education students and minorities.
The need to shake out the subgroup data was codified in the 2001 law known as “No Child Left Behind,” which mandated that test results improve on a regular basis. Publicizing results for the subgroups was intended to assure their performance was not masked by overall gains in the general school population.
When the Every Student Succeeds Act replaced NCLB in 2015, it de-emphasized test scores. The state began releasing data for the various subgroups under the umbrella name of “Historically Underperforming” students.
Using the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in 2018 results for English Language Arts (ELA), math and science tests, the Times Leader compared the number of Luzerne County schools that exceeded the state results in both categories. That is, the number of schools with higher rates for historically underperforming students was compared to the state rate for that group, and the number of schools with higher rates for all students was compared to the state rate for all students.
There are two important caveats. As statistics (and the moniker “historically underperforming”) suggest, in all three tests the state rate for all students is higher than the state rate for historically underperforming students. Results are being compared within each category, not to a single benchmark.
There may also be fewer schools with reported test results for historically underperforming students, despite the fact it is the same test administered in the same grades to all students. That’s because the state does not publicize test results if the number of students in a given subgroup is fewer than 20. That’s probably why the state provides “historically underperforming” test results for 47 Luzerne County schools in ELA and math, yet reports “all students” results for 52 schools for the same tests.
Where they rate
All that said, Luzerne County schools exceeded the state results more frequently for historically underperforming students than for all students.
In ELA, 25 local schools had higher percentages scoring proficient or advanced than the state rate of 43.9 percent. That’s better than local schools did when comparing scores for all students, where 21 local schools beat the state rate of 61.4 percent.
In math, 18 local schools had better results than the state rate of 25.2 percent scoring proficient or better among historically underperforming students. In results for all students, 16 local schools beat the state rate of 42 percent.
Science tests are administered in fewer grades, meaning schools where those grades aren’t taught don’t have any test results to report. In Luzerne County, 43 schools posted science test scores for historically underperforming students. Of those, 22 were above the state rate of 49.7 percent. This is the one test where the subgroup underperforming students did not outdo results for all students. Locally, 27 schools had better results than the state rate when looking at scores for all students.